I am not very good at trying to give physics lessons to 5 year olds (meaning, trying to explain to Christians about their heros, Kent Hovind, Walt Brown and how their 'theories' or lack thereof, are in serious error), however, I am frequently questioned about my lack-of-beliefs.

- The common argument is the lawgiver one that is now being used. Apparently, atheists are still Christians because we have morals. Not sure how to handle that one.

- Another one is that the speed of light isn't consistent. This was raised by a Christian, which I debunked time and time again. Christians apparently have 'proof' the speed of light was faster in the past, but of course, they didn't have any equipment that can measure it 2,000 years ago.

- I have a serious problem with people who take Genesis 1 and 2 literally, then take other parts metaphorically. How can one expect to defend against such blatant mistakes? If I had a math problem, like this:

3x - y^2 = 12

Should I take the x literally, and discard the y? If I the above math problem anything other than literally, the answer would be false. People are supposed to take the entire bible literally, every word. (Revelation says you should, the bible is the word of god, and word of god is infallible). So when they discard horrible things like slaughtering of newborns, they say that's not what it means. I don't quite get that (at all)

- When I question the abundance of other religions, they are discarded and then they say unknowns are saved. (I have no idea where this comes from, a verse in the bible?)

- "I'll pray for you" .. Nuff said.

- What about the 'science agrees with the bible' nonsense? I was told 'Scientists agree with religion' but I cannot find a shred of evidence of anyone (credible!) saying this.

- The Noah's Ark story.. 326 quintillion gallons of water are on the earth (National Geographic). The bible says the waters rose 15 cubit above the tallest mountain. Mt Everest is 29,000 feet (rounded down). It would take 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometers more water than exists on earth to raise the oceans over 8,000 meters. When I point this out, they tell me it happened because it's a Miracle..

When I attended Sunday school as a child, my favorite story was Noah's ark. I loved the idea of having all those wild animals living under one roof so as to be there to pet and play with.

When older it simply became a matter of amusement thinking, how could people honestly believe god loves them and as proof drowned the whole world for being his human mistake,yet save one family so as to repopulate the earth with his natural born sinners again and again through inbreeding? (We really need a cross eyed smiley here 8) ) Not to mention how odd it was that every animal saved on the ark lived in walking distance of Noah's house.

Sometime I take Theists challenges with questions like those you've encountered pose to you, and bother to give a try at answering and maybe putting their ridiculousness to rest. Of course, in most cases it's not to be because the fear paradigm that's been implanted into Christians tends to cause them to be unreasonable, well firstly because they are Theists so that's a given, but because also they actually think their immortal soul is on the line. So if they falter in their "walk of faith", they'll crisp forever thanks to the judgment they deserve to, as brought down by that all loving god that created hell so as to prove it.

Also, there's the edict in the NT to go forth into all the world and spread the good news. So that the new cult's longevity was assured just as soon as Paul said Jesus said leave no stone unturned and tell everyone they need to be a Christian if they want a decent after life. St. Francis took that so much to heart that he tried to bring animals unto salvation.
REPENT! You sinful chicken! Else you shall roast in hell for eternity.

Yeah, it's those visuals as you're picking up a bucket at KFC that really make me glad I'm not a fallen Catholic. I hate choking on white meat, while driving.

Pretty much, as far as that spread the good news bit goes, I see it as something the insecure Christian takes to heart. They feel the only way they'll feel comfortable living their faith in this world, is if everyone else holds the same religious values. As long as "you're" one of them, all's right with their life because then they don't have to be challenged by people like you, who dare them to question or to even ask questions.

Which, when they ask questions they may want to know your answer, but mostly I think for the really devout Fundy, it's that they want to overwhelm you with what they presume is their superior god given knowledge that regardless of how intellectually superior you may truly be to them, they're redeemed by the knowledge that their faith insures, and thus unlike you, that they shan't roast in hell.

Christian Proselytizing reminds me of that old parable about the poisoned well. "I'll pray for you." Often does too, as that can meant to imply they'll ask that, while admonished to love their neighbor as themselves, they really just want all their neighbors on the same page as them.

The Parable of the Poisoned Well
There was once a wise king who ruled over a vast city. He was feared for his might and loved for his wisdom. Now in the heart of the city, there was a well whose waters were pure and crystalline from which the king and all the inhabitants drank. When all were asleep, an enemy entered the city and poured seven drops of a strange liquid into the well. And he said that henceforth all who drink this water shall become mad.

All the people drank of the water, but not the king. And the people began to say, "The king is mad and has lost his reason. Look how strangely he behaves. We cannot be ruled by a madman, so he must be dethroned."

The king grew very fearful, for his subjects were preparing to rise against him. So one evening, he ordered a golden goblet to be filled from the well, and he drank deeply. The next day, there was great rejoicing among the people, for their beloved king had finally regained his reason.

When I am confronted with the lawgiver argument, I always counter with elephants.

The speed of light one is new on me. I've never seen anyone anywhere argue that the speed of light is not a constant. That one makes no sense.

How do you take Genesis 1 & 2 literally? They are internally inconsistent. In Gen 1 God creates animals on one day and man and woman together on the next. In Gen 2 he creates man, then animals and then women.

Actually, the existence of other religions is all the evidence you need that religions CAN be made up since obviously they were made up. Appolonius and Zoroastor said what Christ said and performed the same miracles before he did.

The best answer to "I'll pray for you" is "I'll think for you."

The Koran can also be used that way. It's a self-defeating argument if you use it discriminately.

Their Noah's Ark argument is valid so far as it goes. The Jonah story also holds weight - IF miracles are true. The real problem with the Noah story is not the miraculous water. The real problem is the time line. 40 days is not enough time for that much water to fall - period. It wouldn't be a rain - it would be a high pressure hose on the entire surface of the planet. Even the boat would have been destroyed. Of course that could be a miracle too - that the boat was saved - but if that's the case, then what's the purpose of the boat? Also, after the flood what did the animals eat? What does a chicken eat on a mountain top while waiting for the flood waters to subside? What did the Koala eat?

Quote:- The common argument is the lawgiver one that is now being used. Apparently, atheists are still Christians because we have morals. Not sure how to handle that one.

What about atheists that were never Christians? o.0 By their "logic" a cultural Jew who doesn't believe in a god is moral because he/she is still a Christian? An atheist Buddhist is moral because he/she is still a Christian? That makes absolutely no effing sense and is completely ignorant of reality >.<

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula

(19-04-2011 07:06 PM)Monk Wrote: - The common argument is the lawgiver one that is now being used. Apparently, atheists are still Christians because we have morals. Not sure how to handle that one.

Simple as this. Go to this website: http://www.evilbible.com pick any evil verses from the bible (I particularly like the one where if a man gets CAUGHT raping a young woman, the rapist must buy her from her father, and the one where if a man rapes someone's wife, they BOTH get stoned to death. Deuteronomy is full of gems like these) and show them to the Christian that uses the "lawgiver" argument. When he/she says something to the effect of "that doesn't count!" then you go "well if you can actually tell which verses in the bible are good and which ones are bad, and therefore 'don't count', despite the bible being touted as the 'Good Book', surely our morals come from somewhere else that's independent from the bible or religion".

Penn Jillette said it himself on a Bullshit! episode: "Whatever you do, don't read the Bible for a moral code: it advocates prejudice, cruelty, superstition, and murder. Read it because we need more atheists, and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn Bible."

The God excuse: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument. "God did it." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. - George Carlin

Quote:- The common argument is the lawgiver one that is now being used. Apparently, atheists are still Christians because we have morals. Not sure how to handle that one.

What about atheists that were never Christians? o.0 By their "logic" a cultural Jew who doesn't believe in a god is moral because he/she is still a Christian? An atheist Buddhist is moral because he/she is still a Christian? That makes absolutely no effing sense and is completely ignorant of reality >.<

Exactly. But then again, they pull out bible quotes to say non christians are saved except for a group of people that reject god outright (I have no idea what quote this is from)

For example. My roommate is a christian. A bat-shit crazy baptist, at that. Now, when we get into the morals thing (ie: Say I won't date a stripper because I personally think it's morally wrong), he questions where I get my morals from. He said if there are morals, there is a moral law giver. Now, this is the key. Apparently everyone on this planet has morals that were 'given' to us by a magic space daddy, and guess who it is? Not the Greek Gods, or anything like that, the Christian God.

Now, I've stated to him countless times that there is no evidence for a lawgiver outside of my parent(s). He states the continuity argument that if my parents had morals, where did they get theirs from, et al.

So yea, that's the new apologist argument for god that people are using.

The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation
Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6 The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation
Matt 5:17-19
111. Christ's mission was peace
Luke 2:13,14 Christ's mission was not peace
Matt 10:34

As for the argument you get from some Theists that claim atheists are still Christian's because they have morals, aside from that being resultant of abject stupidity or patent ignorance as to what atheism is and is not, it's impossible for morality posessed by the atheist to equate them to Christians, when the Bible is replete with verses (and laws ) that denote God and Jesus were immoral!

So maybe reading up so as to ready yourself for that next encounter where you face a Theist that proffers that "Law Giver" argument, you might counter right off with something akin to; well actually the entire Christian Bible denotes both a god and demi-god to be wholly immoral! And as such if there be any Christian who considers themselves to be moral despite that, then they would be atheist!

You should read Dawkins's The God Delusion. It's got a whole chapter on the bible and morality, and how the bible has a lot of moral values that would be completely unacceptable today, and how today's morals are determined by the "spirit of times" or Zeitgeist as he calls it. Slavery is OK in the bible. Slavery was OK 200 years ago. Slavery is completely wrong today. Our attitude towards race, women's rights, gay rights, child abuse, animal abuse, etc. have changed through the years. The bible certainly hasn't changed its stance since it was first written, but our morals definitely aren't the same as they were 100, 300, 2000 years ago. Heck, once you read evilbible.com a bit, you'll realize that anyone who takes the bible literally and does all of his/her actions based on exactly what the bible says would probably go to jail nowadays.

The God excuse: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument. "God did it." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. - George Carlin

I'm so glad to see other people referencing evilbible.com. Whoever created that site should be given an award for advancing humanity. I often reference it in my debates with folks who claim the bible is the source of our morality, or that Christians are more moral than atheists, etc. It's also a fantastic resource when debating theists about God condoning rape and slavery and genocide. A lot of moderate Christians can't believe that stuff is even in the Bible. Apparently they've never read it, even though they will argue with you for hours on end that everything in it is true (except for the parts they don't believe in).